> yep. correct. We can define only static attributes (which we know
> for sure should present in every object of given type and leave
> phase specific attributes to stay dynamic)
>
> Hmm. I would think that even in each phase, we have a bunch of
> fields that we *know* we want to have, right?
>
> correct, in gds terms they call it static attributes.

I was more nit-picking your statement that we would only have a field
fields that would be available for every phase, and then use dynamic
fields for all phase-specific data. While GDS *can* handle that,
wouldn't it be better to have a model for each phase (similar to your
mockup) that expects a specific set of data for each phase? Extra
data on top of that would be a bonus, but wouldn't be necessary. More
specifically: we *know* what data should be available in each phase,
so why not tell GDS about it in the model (rather than using dynamic
fields that we know will always be there)?

Perhaps we're just getting confused by language and I should wait for
your next mock-up to see what you guys do... :-)